The Last Crusade

What does the title “The Last Crusade” suggest about the film as a whole?

I think that this very determinate title suggests the culmination of an archaeologist’s quest as well as the importance of this quest as a finale. A title such as “Quest for the Grail” would not separate the quest from any other adventure. The idea that this is the “last” of something, an ending, points to the idea that the adventure will culminate in a finale, indubitable conclusion. Additionally, the term “crusade” hints at more of the content of the movie than if the grail alone lent its name to the title. The audience gets a sense of the religious tone of the film as well as the connections to medieval and Nazi crusades. Rather than focusing around the grail itself, the title of the film suggests a more important theme (at the end of the film the grail was dropped, so the actual possession of the grail turned out not to be the resolving point of the film).

How Indiana achieves the grail/the father’s injury and salvation:

In order to achieve the grail, Indiana must basically put all his faith in God (i.e. he must ignore his doubts and literally take a leap of faith in order to get to the grail). As to how this connects to the father’s rescue from death, I think that the undertone is something along the lines of the idea that only those who submit themselves completely to Gog will achieve salvation.

Choosing the right grail:

The choosing of the grail scene is definitely a reference to the many glorified ‘grail quests’ that people go after (i.e. a quest for youth), while the most important, original quest is overlooked by everyone except those people who are truly worthy/who understand the meaning of the real quest. The fact that the Nazi’s chose the wrong grail shows that they were not concerned with religious humility, but rather with glorification. They could have never chosen the right grail, because they were not on a quest for the right grail (the one that would have saved them).

Small World Part 4

Question: How does Persse resemble specific characters in any of the medieval stories that we have read in class, particularly regarding his love life?

By the end of the novel, I related Persse more to Calisto from La Celestina than anyone else, including Percival from the story of the grail. The fact that Angelica turned out to be two people reflects the idea that the two versions of Angelica that Persse had in mind could not possibly coincide in a single person (this is very much like Calisto’s struggle with the real Melibea and the idealized Melibea). While Angelica, both for her namesake and her reputation, appears to be unattached to the world, making her an impossible goal, her sister Lily is very much attached to the earth and earthly pleasures (both in her actions and her namesake). However, it is interesting that both names reflect a kind of purity, however unrealistic, that Persse is striving for. Just as Melibea and Calisto could have neither honor nor pleasure once their lives became intertwined, so too is Persse incapable of attaining the angelic being that he followed around the world nor even maintain the pleasure that he experienced with the sister once he found out that she was not the person that he was looking for. The revealing of Angelica’s twin sister after Persse became involved with her also reflects the way that Melibea and Calisto lost all the pleasure of their fantasy once they finally got together.

Small World 1

Question 1: The Prologue) Lodge is clearly setting the reader up for a kind of satirical work. The themes of the prologue sharply contrast the image of “self-improvement” or hard work and the less-idealistic reality that is often underneath: “Not all conferences are happy, hedonistic occasions; not all conference venues are luxurious and picturesque; not all Aprils, for that matter, are marked by sweet showers and dulcet breezes.” This juxtaposition is farther enhanced in Part 1, when Persse states, “April is the cruelest month” (3). Lodge also uses Geoffrey Chaucer to enhance this theme. Many (though not all) of the characters in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (the Merchant, for example, epitomizes this theme of a pleasant exterior contrasting with a manipulative, immoral interior. One juxtaposition that Lodge is expressing in the opening paragraphs is the appearance of academic betterment and the ‘underlying agenda’ of contemporary literary conferences. When he speaks of these conferences, he mentions building relationships, gossiping, eating, drinking, sightseeing, and making merry. He only mentions the ‘supposed’ purpose of these conferences – the presenting of papers – as an excuse to indulge in all of the former benefits of these modern “pilgrimages.” Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is regarded as one of the few literary works from the medieval ages that may paint of us, the modern reader, an image of medieval society, and it is towards the juxtaposition between appearance and reality seen in many of Chaucer’s character’s here that Lodge is drawing a parallel to. However, not all of the characters in The Canterbury Tales are ‘two-faced’ in this respect. One cannot say that all pilgrimages were made without noble intent, or that all members of a literary conference care more about gossip than literature. This is why I think it is important that Lodge ends the prologue with a repetition of the phrase “not all,” as it gets across the idea of a misconception of self-betterment and literary prowess while not being an overly generalized statement. This draws attention directly back to The Story of the Grail, in which ideal knights were far and few between even thought there were a developed standard. Lodge prepares the reader for a character that lives in the framework of a misconception of literary prowess, just as Percival lived in the framework of a misconception of knighthood.

Question 3: Conference Settings) One thing that stuck out at me was that Lodge peppers the description of the university with words that express a hurried sense of time (“a building hastily erected in 1969… and now, only ten years later”; “the traces of posters hurriedly removed”), and stresses the use of depressing or glum adjectives to describe the people and the setting (“slumped in the raked rows of seats”; “dismay had been already plainly written on many faces”; “glumly unpacked their suitcases”; “springs sagged dejectedly in the middle”). This creates the idea of a place and time significantly less reputable than what is once was or could have been (this again relates back to the theme of false or disappointing perceptions as seen with the concept of knighthood in The Story of the Grail). Lodge also creates a setting that feels compact and prison-like, filling the reader with a sense of impending escape (“cracked and pitted walls”; “little privacy”). Dr Rupert Sutcliffe clearly represents what Lodge would call the realists’ version of the conferences. This contrasts greatly with Perceval’s first encounter with an ‘esteemed’ character in The Story of the Grail, in which the knights were built up, in Perceval’s mind, to be angelic creatures.

Question 4: Angelica) Lodge is clearly mocking the stereotypical role of a female love interest in the way that he first presents Angelica (a name he undoubtedly chose for its otherworldly, angelic connotations). As Chretien did with all of the female love interests in his story, Lodge describes only Angelica’s physical attributes, and goes to a point of parodying the angelic grace that she is meant to emanate for Persse: “At that moment the knots of chatting conferees seemed to loosen and part, as if by some magical impulsion, opening up an avenue between Persse and the doorway. Thus, hesitating on the threshold was the most beautiful girl he had ever seen in his life.” He mentions her “womanly figure,” her dark skin, hair, and eyes, her lips, and her posture, leaving it up to Angelica herself to point out the treatment of women versus men in this setting: “If you use initials in the academic world, people think you’re a man and take you more seriously.” I also think it is interesting that her root are a mystery, her being an adopted child, further disassociating Angelica from a tangible world that Persse can relate to on a common level.

Percival 3

1. We find Perceval on a journey in a deserted area where he encounters three knights and ten maidens. What might this group represent? Where might we see a parallel to this group in the text? What do they represent to Perceval?

Could the three knights possibly represent the holy trinity? The main function of this group’s appearance was to re-introduce Christianity into Perceval’s life, so the idea that they do represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be contingent upon this religious theme. As for parallels of this theme throughout the story, one might interpret Blacheflor’s name to be a reference to the symbol of the Holy Trinity, the lily. Going along these lines, could the ten maidens represent the Ten Commandments? (As ridiculous as it sounds, I feel compelled to point out that 10-3 is 7, ie the seven deadly sins, though I’m pretty sure that’s not where Chretien was going.) If Chretien was a converting Jew, then that would make these characters all the more important to his story. They state: “All those who believe in him should do penance on this day… We fulfilled the most important duty that any Christian can do who truly wishes to please God” (458). They also chide Percival for wearing his armor on Good Friday, and just before Percival comes across this group, Chretien states that though Perceval continued to “pursue the deeds of chivalry,” he completely forgot about God for five years. Chretien does an interesting, if not altogether surprising thing here by separating knighthood and Christianity, and in this scene with the three knights and ten maidens religion is clearly places well above knighthood. This value set was seen very early in the story with Percival’s mother, who was very religious and shielded her son from knighthood due to its dangers. It would be interesting if these were the knights and half of the maidens that were mentioned in the beginning of the story, in Perceval’s first encounter with knighthood (it is interesting to note that in Perceval’s first encounter with knighthood he placed knights on the same level as, if not above, religion, but in this scene with the 13 travelers the case is turned completely around).

2. We see Perceval begin to weep as he goes to repent to the Hermit. Why does he begin weeping? What can be said about his self-image at this point?

“Perceval set out on the path, sighing deep within his heart because he felt he had sinned against God and was very sorry for it. Weeping, he went through the thicket…” (459). This reference to “the path” could be referring to the religious path that he hermit, Perceval’s uncle, sends him on. When the hermit asks Perceval what he is repenting for, he does not mention his mother’s death – he only mentions the things that other people have told him he has done wrong, ie not asking about the lance and the grail. The hermit is the one who corrects him by telling him that all of his misfortunes are a result of the sin of his mother’s death. So, though Perceval seems to be more aware of his vulnerabilities and faults at this time, he is still learning. There is also the fact that his misfortunes were also caused by taking the “gentleman’s” advice about keeping his mouth shut – this further indicates that his happiness will not come from following the path of knighthood, but rather tracing back his maternal lines to religious roots.

Percival 2

1) Blanchflor’s name is interesting because it seems to imply a contradiction: the color white typically represents a kind of purity and innocence, while a flower (as seen in La Celestina) may often represent a woman’s sexuality. This contrast of innocence and reality is seen on numerous occasions with Blancheflor when she speaks to Percival: “She pretended to discourage him by her words, though in fact she wished him to fight; but it often happens that one hides one’s true desires when one sees someone who is keen to enact them, in order to increase his desire to fulfill them” (also seen in La Celestina). There is also the fact that though Chretien describes her as an object of desire, “an unsurpassed marvel to dazzle men’s hearts and minds,” she rejects the advances of Clamadeu, and though she herself is “charming and splendid,” her kingdom is wasting away before her eyes. Also, the first time she visits Percival in bed she means “no wickedness or evil” by it. In light of the fact that Percival also protects Blanchflor and her kingdom from Clamadeu, all of these things cold indicate that Blancheflor represents a protection of the innocent for Percival, who is anything but “charming and splendid” himself. On that note, I find it interesting that the red color of Percival’s attire is constantly mentioned throughout the text – this could be a direct contrast to the white purity that Blancheflor represents. The red color of Percival’s armor could be reminiscent of blood, and thereby passion, in contrast to Blancheflor’s calculating intellect. It is interesting to look at this theme when considering the concept of matriarchal and patriarchal society: the red represents and unrestrained, blood-spilling, violent passion while the white seems to temper or control this kind of behavior (this theme is repeated in the scene with the blood on the snow).

3) I thought it was interesting that the blood on the snow was caused by a bird, when the first thing that Chretien compares Blancheflor to is a bird (specifically “a sparrow-hawk or a parrot”). This reference back to Blancheflor is explicated when Percival immediately recalls Blancheflor when he sees the goose’s blood. In Christianity, the goose’s call is often thought to be a warning of imminent wickedness; considering that this episode may be a possible foreshadowing of sinister events, or perhaps even Percival’s effect on Blancheflor (if the hawk that attacked the goose is read as a representation of Percival), it is ironic that Percival reacts with joy when he sees the blood: “As he gazed upon this sight, it pleased him so much that he felt as if he were seeing the fresh color if his fair lady’s face.” The fact that blood reminds Percival of Blanchflor is pretty creepy… I’m thinking that there is a possible connection between this and the fact that the hawk attacked the goose without actually obtaining it – representing an unrequited struggle, perhaps?

Percival 1

Question 1)

Chretien emphasizes a theme of worthiness in the prologue by comparing he court (his intended audience) to Alexander the Great. The latter’s name would initially imply that he is exemplary, and Chretien remarks in his opening statements that he tells this tale “for the most worthy man in all the empire of Rome… whom surpasses Alexander, who they say was so Great” (381). Almost the entirely of the rest of the prologue explains all of Alexander’s “vices and wickedness” in comparison to his virtuous audience. Rather than simply serving as a way by which the author flatters his audience, this theme of supposed greatness falling short in comparison with the royal court seems to foreshadow the contrast between great knights and the imitation of knighthood (a popular theme in Chretien’s stories). This theme harkens back to The Knight with the Lion (Yvain), in which Yvain had to learn to become a real knight instead of a worthless pretender. (This theme of true worth and “vainglory” is repeated when Chretien speaks of the left and right hands.) What is interesting about The Story of the Grail however, is the that Chretien gives his name unabashedly to the audience as opposed to hiding it before the main character of the tale is worthy of associating with him. Rather, the name of the main character is not initially given. He states in his opening lines, “Chretien sows and casts the seed of a romance that he is beginning, and sows it in such a good place that it cannot fail to be bountiful” (381), yet the main character seems to fall short of someone the author might ask the audience to put their faith in. This makes the character all the more interesting, in that he must build up his worth as the tale goes on.

Question 2)

Unlike every other story by Chretien that we have read to far, Percival is completely unacquainted with knighthood – hidden from it in fact – because his mother is afraid of losing her son if he becomes a knight. Though the mother’s portrayal of knighthood is foreboding, the knights in the Waste Forest seem to serve a worthy example of knighthood when Percival meets them. While the knights fulfill the audiences expectations of what knights must be like, Percival serves as a direct contrast to this, so it is ironic, if not altogether surprising, when it is revealed that he comes from a line of great knights. When Percival sets of on an adventure to become knighted, the audience cannot help but compare him to the knights that put this very idea into his head. In this, Chretien shines a different light on the kind of people who try to become knights, disassociating the occupation from perfection.

Question 3)

The mother’s misery at the thought of her son’s discover of knighthood and his subsequent departure goes remarkably unnoticed by Percival, who seems entirely too self-centered or ignorant to think much of anyone but himself (as was seen in the previous scene with the knights, where he could not answer their questions because he was so preoccupied with things that captured his interest more). Though the mother’s warnings of knighthood may have led to trepidation in any other person, Percival insists upon departing after she reveals his lineage to him. She then gives him advice on how to behave as a worthy knight, emphasizing how he should treat the women he meets on his adventures, and though this advice seemed good and simple enough to her (as she is familiar with the ways of knighthood), Percival miserably misinterprets her words (when he doesn’t completely ignore them). Though Percival tells his mother that he understands what she has said to him, he gallops away from her after he sees her faint upon his departure, and unwittingly torments the next person woman he meets. Percival harkens back to the characters that Chretien makes a mockery of in his earlier tales of worthy vs. unworthy knights.

That Obscure Object of Desire

These questions are 'out of order' because I typed out these thoughts immediately after watching the film, before the questions were posted. The question numbers that I put before each major paragraph refers to the question(s) that I thought best fit what I was getting at.

3) Why are there two actresses playing the same role?

The two Conchitas represent the two things that Mateo wants from Conchita but cannot have simultaneously: she cannot be the unbridled manifestation of sexual desire while maintaining the chastity that he finds so compelling. This double-standard is visible through Mateo when he first tries to wile Conchita into fulfilling his desires and later on when he kisses her hand affectionately after she tells him that she is a virgin. It is important to note that both of the Conchitas mentioned here are the ‘second’ Conchita, who clearly represents the more amorous side of the woman. This is the Conchita towards whom Meteo makes his first real advances, the Conchita he sees dancing, the only Cochinta he sees completely naked, and most importantly the Conchita who appears to be much more at ease with her sexuality than her other ‘half.’ This is also the Cochinta that Mateo takes out his aggression on, and the Conchita we see right before the last bomb explodes, ending the film and a severely detrimental relationship.

5) Why is Mateo telling the story? Why a flashback?

It is crucial that Meteo is telling the story because the listeners are better permitted to see Conchita through Mateo’s eyes. In one of the most pivotal scenes of the film, Conchita tells Mateo that he does not understand women: what is certain is that he clearly does not understand Conchita, or he would not constantly be seeing only one of her two ‘halves,’ but the ‘real’ Conchita. This is why the story is told through Mateo’s perspective, because it is the only way to portray Mateo’s limited knowledge of Conchita. Bunuel does not want the story to be told from an objective point of view because such a telling would allow the audience a better understanding of Conchita’s character. The real Conchita remains a mystery to both Meteo and the audience from beginning to end. The conflict between Conchita and Mateo arises due to the fact that Mateo cannot see the whole person. I find it ironic that any time that Conchita acts in one of her two extremes, either extremely amorous or extremely chaste, Mateo is not satisfied. Yet, Meteo still refuses to see Conchita in any light other than one of these two extremes. Overall, I interpreted this as a commentary on an unrealistic double standard.

2, 4) Why are there so many references to terrorism?

A terrorists aim is to affect dramatic change based on a biased perspective by terrorizing the masses: in this light, terrorism may be seen as an extension of Mateo and Conchita’s relationship. In the closing scene, a reporter is commenting on the two groups of politically extreme terrorists (the far-rights and the far-lefts) who are at war with one another – this is similar to how Conchita’s two extreme halves are fighting with each other. There are also many references to Meteo ‘killing’ Conchita when he is discussing his attempts to get her to conform to his desires: first, there is the scene in which he is trying to ‘buy’ her through her mother, in which a mouse is caught and killed in a trap; then, the scene in the restaurant where a fly is caught in Mateo’s glass when he is talking about possessing women. Both of these scenes suggest the theme of death as a result of possession and captivity, foreshadowing the end of the film, at which point Mateo and Conchita are finally ‘together’ out in the open immediately preceding the final bombing of the film.

Celestina 4

Question 1

Calisto’s speech here does not convey any sense of happiness; rather, he is troubled by the shame he now suffers because of his actions, his desires, and the deaths of Celestina and his servants.

“Alas, how can my great loss ever be made good? What shall I do? Where can I turn to advice? Whom can I tell of my disaster? Why do I conceal it from my family and my other servants? I’m in trouble abroad, and I don’t speak of it at home. I had better put on an appearance.” Celestina was the embodiment of desire, and society allowed her to do what she did because she bore the burden of shame so that no one else had to (much in the same way that prostitutes all bore the shame of their station while medieval society permitted to continue). Now that Celestina is dead, Calisto has to bear his own shame. Again we see the theme of truth and appearances, a constant dichotomy throughout the text. Calisto will pretend to be innocent even though he knows he bares the same shame that became the death of Celestina and his servants.

“By day I will stay in my room, and by night in that sweet paradise, that happy garden, among those gracious plants and that fresh venture. O night of my relief, would you were here again! O shining Phoebus, hasten your customary way!” Calisto’s desire has not been satisfied; he wants Melibea just as much as ever, if not more. Calisto uses extensive metaphors and allusions to convey the lust and desire he feels. First, he mentions the garden again, another possible allusion to the Garden of Eden: after Adam and Eve gained sexual knowledge, they were thrown out of paradise; this could foreshadow an unhappy ending for the lovers. Calisto also mentions the Greek God Phoebus when he speaks of his desire for time to move faster; it is interesting to note that Greek and other pagan religions are incited far more often than God. This could be interpreted as a way of further under-toning the absence of religion in the text. However, at the same time, Melibea and Calisto are placed into the positions they are in precisely because the state’s religion has assigned these positions to them. Therefore, Calisto’s troubled speech here may represent the individual’s battle with human nature and society’s abuse of religion. Again and again Calisto speaks of Melibea as one would speak of God. It is because the state religion itself has failed Calisto, (and in fact all of these characters) that he must place his faith in another person; in so doing he transfers his worship of God to a worship of desire. Yet this new ‘religion,’ rather than fulfilling him, is the cause of all this trouble and pain. Calisto’s speech may therefore be commentating on his search for faith in something tangible. Because Calisto’s nature makes him consumed by desire, Melibea appears to fulfill his sense of worth. Yet he cannot convey happiness in his speech because according to society he must bare the shame of succumbing to his natural desires.

Celestina 3

1. Celestina is praising Areusa as she did when she was talking to Parmeno in the previous scene – this is because they either have something that she wants, or pose a threat to her. Celestina wants Parmeno to be loyal to her so that she won’t have to worry that he will betray her to Calisto, so she uses Areusa to barter with him. “Parmeno, my friend, you know what I promised you; and you, my daughter, know what I asked you to do” (89). Celestina’s language in the scene between she and Areusa displays once again how her character is the personification of lies and deceit. I thought it was interesting that Celestina herself noted that actions speak louder than words: “I believe in deeds; you can buy words cheaply anywhere” (87). She also says something very interesting about the nature of women: “You can’t enjoy your own good looks, so let those enjoy them who can. Do you think you were created without a purpose? When a girl is born a boy is born, one for the other. Everything in this world was made with some design and nature has a use for it. It’s a sin to vex men when you can help them” (86). Here, Celestina’s words convey the idea that what a woman does with a body is her “purpose,” and that it is only right and natural for a woman to use her body in the most profitable way possible. She suggests that the purpose of any one woman is to fulfill the desires of a man. In a large way this turns the popular Medieval conception of the purpose women on its head: women in the Middle ages, and indeed through much of history, were often more limited in their ‘career’ choices than men: basically, they could either marry or become part of the church and be expected to abandon their sexuality altogether. It is therefore ironic that the theme of prostitution in this text would have been looked down upon, as it would seem that women are often looked at simply as sexual objects. In a large way, these women are simply fulfilling the ‘roles’ that society, and perhaps even the church, has assigned them with openness as opposed to hypocritical denial. Clearly then, the only way to put an end to hypocrisy and prostitution is to look at women in terms of something more than a mere sexual object. Celestina, while using society’s conception of women to her advantage, does not liberate anyone from their classified social stations, but forces them to be buried further into them: she encourages Calisto to become the hunter and applauds women for fulfilling nothing more than base desires. Celestina thrives off of the absence of both love and God in the text: if either of these two things were genuinely present, her line of work would not be as prosperous as it currently is. Though this complexity of character certainly makes the text by far the most enthralling of all the stories we have read, the almost misanthropic tone doesn’t really ‘sit well’ with me; I feel as though the text would be more compelling if there were a more morally stable character to counter Celestina. Since this state of things leaves me looking for a character in which to place my sympathies, I was, for a time, forced to have more sympathy for Calisto than anyone else, at least until he started to make this even more difficult. I do understand Calisto’s major faults, and the fact that this text really doesn’t offer a character towards whom the reader may project their sympathies, but I wanted to clarify my reasons for going against the idea that Celestina should somehow be praised as a complex character when in fact Calisto can be considered morally complex in the idea that he thinks he embodies the spirit of true love even though he clearly does not. It seemed as though this particular interpretation caused some dissension in class.

2. While jealousy may play a large part in Areusa and Elicia’s comments about Melibea, I think that it has just as much – if not more – to do with what Melibea stands for in contrast to these two women. For Areusa and Elicia, Melibea’s character may be an insult to their stations: while the two prostitutes are open about their place as women in desire-driven society, Melibea hides this very same desire behind a distain for such things. The prostitutes must consider this a kind of hypocrisy; if they are jealous of anything, it is probably not Melibea’s “beauty” and “gentleness,” but the fact that due to her craftiness she would be able to fulfill her desires while maintaining her social standing. Thus, the hypocrite gains more than those people who are honest about their identities. I find it ironic that though Celestina’s work is very much one with illusion, it stems from a kind of truth. Therefore, this goes back to my thoughts in the previous question about Celestina’s house being a mockery of the roles that society places on men and women.

4. The chain that Caliso gives Celestina represents both a kind of prison as well as truth. It is interesting to note that he gives her the chain instead of the cloak and skirt that he promised her: while cloaks and skirts cover people up, the chain may show people for what they truly are. For Calisto, the chain represents his state as a prisoner to desire. The fact that he gives this chain to Celestina may represent her control over him in this respect.

Celestina 2

2. In Act IV how do we see Celestina’s fame precede her, both with Lucrecia and then with Melibea? Is this good or bad? Why?

We see Celestina’s fame work to both her advantage and her disadvantage in this scene. One the one hand, her fame and connections makes Lucrecia familiar with her and allows her access to Melibea: “Celestina! Welcome, dear mother! What lucky wind blew you out of your ordinary course?” (Act IV, Scene ii, page 46). However, her fame does not work to this same advantage with Alisa and Melibea. We see the first hints of this fact when Lucrecia is hesitant to tell her mistress Celestina’s name, for she fears Alisa’s reaction and says that she is “ashamed” to speak the name. I found it interesting that Alisa had such a difficult time remembering Celestina: could her distance from this character be a sign of her virtue, or, to go along more with the theme of the book, was Alisa only pretending not to be familiar with Celestina so that she seemed separated from what she represents? We see a similar juxtaposition between familiarity and disassociation with Melibea: first, she does not appear to recognize Celestina, and then when she does she calls Celestina a friend (Act IV, Scene ii, page 51). Does Melibea truly not recognize Celestina at first or is she merely pretending so as to appear distant from her? In any case, Melibea switches her tone when Celestina appears to anger her, saying, “I only let you in because I did not recognize you at first” (Act IV, Scene ii, page 54).

3. How does Melibea’s reaction to Calisto’s name either strengthen or weaken your initial reaction to their first meeting?

Melibea’s reaction to the mention of Calisto’s name, if indeed her anger is only a charade to cover up her desires, does strengthen my reaction to their first meeting the garden. In the opening scene, we see Melibea seeking knowledge and refusing to simply give in to what Calisto initially expects of/wants from her. In Act IV we once again see Melibea asking questions and purposefully making Celestina’s task of helping Calisto to court her (Melibea) extremely difficult. Another thing that is similar between these two scenes is that we see Melibea asking questions and prodding the other person for information even though she appears to reject what they say. These reactions, false or not, are consistent and therefore strengthen my initial reaction to Melibea and Calisto’s first meeting.

4. How do we feel about Celestina in Acts V and VI? Is she smart and wise or a useless trickster? Use details from the text.

While Celestina is certainly smart and quick-witted in many cases, I do not think that ‘wise’ is the most appropriate term for her; ‘trickster’ would probably be more appropriate. While I do not think that any character in this text could completely qualify to be called ‘wise’ (because, in my opinion, a wise person shows not only goof judgment but also virtue), I think that Melibea seems to come the closest to being considered wise, as Celestina appears to have a hard time making use of her as a pawn in her game. Calisto, on the other hand, appears to be the least wise of all the characters as he quite easily lets himself be taken advantage of, which juxtaposes Melibea’s character entirely.

La Celestina 1

1) The garden in the opening scene is probably a reference to the mention of the Garden of Eden later on in scene two: “This is woman, the ancient curse that drove Adam out of the delights of Eden; she it was who sent the human race to hell” (Act I, Scene 1, page 8). Parmeno later speaks of Calisto’s encounter with Melibea: “getting into her garden was the occasion for you seeing her and speaking with her; that led to love; love caused you pain; and pain lost you your body, your soul, and your money” (Act I, Scene I, page 35). Lastly, Calisto consistently makes references throughout the text of the “fire” burning his soul ever since his encounter with Melibea. Given all of these references to Melibea and her effect upon Calisto, it is safe to say that the garden represents not only Melibea herself, but women and love in general, which, according to Sempronio, are evils that will drive a man from happiness. The fire that consumes Calisto, then, is a reference to the hell that Melibea is putting him through.

I am hesitant to believe that Melibea’s words are genuine in the opening scene. In several stories from class, and other stories I have read, a character or the narrator notes that, sometimes, when a woman rejects a man, it is due to custom. If this is taken to be true here, and Melibea is not rejecting Calisto because she hates him, but out of custom, then it may be said that it is ‘custom’ that destroys love and sends people to hell, not women, as Sempronio thinks.

2) I think that Sempronio’s first ‘inner monologue’ represents how people strive to act in a way that is good and pleasing to god, but are often led astray by selfishness or greed. Sempronio, therefore, may, to a certain extent, represent humanity. It is clear that his actions, at least in the beginning of the scene, are driven by his desire to do good by God so that he is not punished by the devil: “And yet, it’s a wicked thing to hope to gain by another’s death. Maybe the devil’s deceiving me and if he dies I’ll be hanged, and that will be the end of Sempronio!” (Ac t I, Scene II, page 3). Given Sempronio’s previous interpretation of women and the garden of Eden, it is not surprising that Sempronio interprets Calisto’s love for Melibea as a kind of blasphemy against God: when Sempronio asks Calisto is he is not a Christian, Calisto responds that he is a Melibean. In Sempronio’s next ‘inner monologue,’ he states that “wise men, saints, and prophets have forgotten Thee for love,” making it clear that Sempronio views Calisto’s love for Melibea as a curse that defies God and Christianity. However, it is interesting to note that Sempronio ends up acting by that very way that he condemns women of acting: he decides to lie, trick, and deceive Calisto because of his greed, making Calisto think that he his helping him when, in fact, he hates him.

3) Celestina uses the desires of men to make a profit; she can therefore be thought of as an external representation of Sempronio’s greed, which causes him to use Calisto’s desires against him to make a profit. She may also represent how evils are mistaken for virtues, as when Calisto falsely thinks that she is going to help him out of his misery. In this, she also represents lies, as seen when she lies not only to Sempronio about the owner of the footsteps he hears when he first comes to see her, but also when Calisto mistakes her charade for truth.

Decameron 6

Story 9.2

In my interpretation, the nun’s actions reflect basic human actions and needs, while the Abbess’s actions reflect the church/religion. The Abbess, a complete hypocrite, basically states that a ‘sin’ can be excused if t would benefit her; she also states, “everyone should enjoy herself whenever possible, provided that it be done as discreetly as it had been until that day” (662). The ending of this story is truly an unresolved one, because the Abbess doesn’t realize that if this so-called ‘sin’ is alright as long as it is done discreetly, she should re-think if it really is a sin in the first place. Clearly, the story is saying that there are some actions and emotions that are a part of human nature, and people of the church can’t be expected to live without these basic human qualities and needs. Why, then , does the Abbess, who succumbs to something she considers wrong, still advocate an unrealistic standard? The narrator also mentions that the other nuns are envious of Isabetta; this could further illustrate the idea that unhappiness is the result of there being no compromise between humanity and the church.

Story 9.3

I think that this story says something interesting about how men react when in a woman’s social position and the kinds of social roles that they can or cannot fulfill. In previous stories we have seen women easily getting away with pretending to be a man (e.g. the story about the ‘Abbot’ who falls in love with Alessandro); they take on the role gracefully. However, in this story, Calandrino does everything he can to get out of filling the role of ‘nurturer’ that would normally be assigned to females in that society: “… just as long as I don’t have to give birth, because I don’t know how to! … If I had to put up with that pain, I’m sure I would die before I gave birth” (666).

9.6

First of all, this has to be the funniest of all the Decameron stories so far.

In answer to the question, I think that the wife’s perception of the events comments on the idea that we as humans are wiling to believe anything, even something completely absurd, if it means freeing ourselves or others from guilt. At the end of the story, “the woman was convinced that she alone had been the only one awake” (686). This is obviously absurd, but all she needed was the faintest suggestion that something else could have happened in order to make up a completely different scenario in her head. Ironically, the wife ends up being convinced by her own lie, which suggests the power of lies, a theme that has been often seen on earlier Decameron stories.

Decameron 5

Stories 7.3 and 7.4

Question 1) Is the trickery in these stories justified?

In these two stories, more than any of the other that we have read concerning wives cheating on their husbands, I have an incredible amount of sympathy for the husband. I can understand the logic behind an affair if the woman is forced into a loveless marriage, but in both of these stories the husbands really loved their family. I couldn’t even understand why Agnesa would want to cheat on her husband in the first place; he seemed to be more of a caring/innocent husband and father than most others we have read about: “his father took him in his arms, weeping as if he were taking the boy from his grave, and he began to kiss the son and thank the godfather for having cured him” (502). The husband in the next story may not seem as virtuous, but it is stated explicitly that he really loves his wife, and her desire to trick him only arose out of the jealousy he had for her because of how much he loved her.

If the ‘moral’ of the story were that women have/should have just as much freedom to have relationships outside of their marriage, then I would have had more sympathy for the wife if she were in a loveless marriage. The theme of trickery seems (in my interpretation) to be arising from the idea that the women who want to have a more free sexual life cannot do so with the same freedom that men have.

I think that the reason why there is such a common theme of trickery running through these stories is partly for the purpose of simply adding humor to the stories (one of the presenters last week mentioned that Boccaccio decided later on in his life that he grew to dislike the Decameron because it was morally baron and suitable only on an ‘entertainment’ level). I think that the theme of trickery often makes the stories more morally complex and in that sense more relatable (to a certain extent); sometimes it’s more interesting to delve into the mindset of a person who is not so virtuous so that the interpretation that any one reader gets from the story is not to black-and-white.

Question 2) In story 7.3, what does the narrator seem to be saying about her view of people who trick others the mentality of the people who allow themselves to be tricked?

I was intrigued by the long tangent that the narrator went on in the middle of the story and thought that it had to have some significant meaning to the overall theme of the story or it would not have been included (referring to the passage in which Elissa goes on a rant about how much she hates hypocritical clergy members). She asks, “Is there a friar who does not act this way?” (498), and chastises these friars for thinking that they are clever in tricking their followers. This would appear to suggest that she has no sympathy for the ‘trickster.’ Later, in the scene where Rinaldo is talking with Agnesa, the narrator states, “The lady, who was unskilled at logic and was in need of very little persuasion, either really believed or pretended to believe that what the friar said was true” (500), commentating on the idea that some people allow themselves to be tricked simply because they want to be tricked. (I have to think that Agnesa is only pretending to believe in what Rinaldo is telling her, because no one can be that stupid.) The husband himself incites much sympathy from the reader, as when he goes pale and weeps upon learning that his son was in mortal danger. It would seem to me that the husband here represents the innocent worshiper who allows himself to be tricked due to blind faith, while Rinaldo obviously represents the hypocritical clergy. I would go as far as to say that the sympathies are supposed to be directed towards the husband, and because of this there are virtually no one praises Elissa’s story when it has concluded (whereas most, if not all, of the stories that we have read are followed by some kind of laughter, praise, or comment of some kind), as the listeners are more used to hearing stories in which the sympathies are directed towards the person having the affair.

Question 3) In story 7.4, what is the point of Monna Gita tricking her husband into drunkenness and tricking her neighbors into thinking that he is a worse man than he is?

In this story, the text explicitly states that Tofano “really did love his wife” (507); in order to ‘justify’ her actions, Gita has to make her husband take on the appearance of a neglectful husband, when in fact she made him that way herself. Later in the story, we see that Tofano still cares about Gita because he rushes to the well when he believes she has fallen in, and finally says she can do whatever she pleases as long as she is discreet about it. But I don’t think that Tofano deserved half of what he got (e.g. the reprimanding and whipping from Gita’s relatives); I actually thought he was clever in the way he tricked his wife by pretending to be drunk and locking her out of the house. In many of the stories that we have previously read, it is the woman who is the mastermind behind the trickery. Of course, this eventually becomes true in this story as well, as it is proven that Gita is cleverer in trickery than her husband. While these stories seem to be attempting to illustrate a kind of balance in marriage, the end result is not a happy, balanced marriage, but simply one in which the role of conniving master and ignorant slave is reversed as opposed to being replaced with a more honest relationship. If Gita was not loved by her husband, and if Tofano really were deserving of the punishment he suffers, then I would sympathize more with Gita taking her life into her own hands.

Decameron 4

Story 5.8: Discuss the confliction between pain and pleasure throughout the story, as well as the theme of wealth and happiness being wrought from death.

Though the theme of this day’s seems to be stories with a happy ending, this is a very twisted, macabre tale. From beginning to end there are constant references to death and pain resulting in happiness, happiness resulting from pain, or the ironic combination of beauty with horrible sights:

- Nastagio is left incredibly rich because of the deaths of his father and uncle.

- The more that Nastagio adores the girl that he loves, the more she distains him; the more that Nastagio tries to hate her in return, the more he loves her.

- The love Nastagio feels compels him to consider suicide.

- The horrible event that Nastagio witnesses happens on a beautiful May day.

- The women that is being chased is beautiful, yet she is naked and bleeding from ugly cuts all over her body.

- The sight of the woman “filled his soul with both wonder and fear” (421).

- The women rejoiced at the death of Guido; she must suffer in pain because she enjoyed his suffering, and he must hunt her like his mortal enemy because his love for her caused him to kill himself.

- In spite of Nastagio’s compassion and fear, he realizes that he can make use of this horrible weekly event.

- The girl Nastagio loves changes her hatred to love because of her fear of eternal punishment.

There is even an ironic confliction between horror and humor in some of the scene, such as when Nastagio hears the terrifying cry and suddenly realizes that he is in a forest.

The narrator also seems to be stating that the emotional pain women inflict on men is equivalent to physical torture, for the woman’s punishment is to be tortured for the same number of years and months that she tortured her admirer.

Obviously, the divinely punished pair in the woods represents Nastagio and the girl he loves. I think it also commentates on the notion of women ‘playing hard to get.’ The narrator of this story is clearly frustrated with the difficulties in pursuing women; the end of the story sees and entire town of women becoming much ‘easier’ to pursue. The moral of this story seems to be that if a woman doesn’t accept a man’s love she will suffer in hell for her ‘cruelty.’ Despite this, this was one of my favorite stories because it was so interesting, twisted, and macabre.

Story 6.7: Discuss Madonna Filippa’s case for herself and its context within medieval society.

I was actually very surprised by Filippa’s argument in this story; it seemed t me that the points she made greatly transcended medieval tradition. In fact she brings up points about the law that won’t come into effect until the 20^th century: she states, in the opening of her argument, “the laws should be equal for all an should be passed with the consent of the consent of the people they affect” (464). She goes on to say that women should have and equal day in matter such as this, and that because they did not give their consent this “may quite rightly be called a bad law” (464).

I was equally surprised by Filostrato’s introduction to the story, in which he states quite clearly that men should be treated with the same punishment was women, and criticizes the law that states a woman should burn at the stake for committing adulatory. (This law has been around at least since Hammurabi’s code, and it wasn’t uncommon in medieval times for a women to be treated with a harsher punishment for adulatory than a man.) ““In the city of Prato, there was once a statute – in truth, no less harsh than it was worthy of criticism – which, without any extenuating circumstances whatsoever, required that any woman caught by her husband committing adultery with a lover should be burned alive” (462).

Filostrato ends the story on a note that Filippa has been absolved from her sin due to her cleverness in her speech: “The lady, now free and happy, and resurrected from the flames, so to speak, returned to her home in triumph” (465).

This story is, in a great way, quite the opposite of the story of Nastagio: while the latter seems to convey the idea that women should consent to the demands of the men lest they burn in hell, this story supports the idea of women being free from such bondage.

Decameron 3

3.3

I found this story to be one of the most interesting in that it appears to demonstrate how the clergy can be the catalyst for the sins that they preach against. By using the friar as a means enabling her love affair, she demonstrates a view of the clergy that replaces innocence with ignorance. The church is often, within the story, described as greedy and not at all pervasive, the latter of which harkens back to the first story in the Decameron, in which the holy man was tricked by the hollow words of a sinner. This could perhaps illustrate the idea that the clergy does not truly understand the sins against which they preach, nor the virtues.

I found it interesting that the narrator of this story decided not to give the names of any of the characters. She explains that doing so would bring shame to the people in the story. However, though the narrator acknowledges the shame that the lovers would suffer if their names were revealed, much more criticism is aimed towards the friar, whom I believe did nothing wrong and was acting on much better intentions than either of the lovers. The narrator states, “most of the clergy are very stupid men with strange manners and habits who consider themselves more worthy and knowledgeable than everybody in everything, when they are in fact, far inferior” (206). I find this ironic since, though the lady claims that she is too noble for her husband, she doesn’t act in a noble way at all by looking for another lover. Her affair is different from others that we have read in that she did not fall in love with someone else unwittingly; rather, she made a point of looking for someone to have an affair with for the sake of having an affair.

3.6

Ricciardo uses Catella’s jealousy against her so that she does not act according to her best judgment (Ricciardo realizes that her paranoia makes her susceptible to believing him). What I find ironic here is that, of all the things Ricciardo uses to turn Catella against her husband is the devotion she feels towards him.

Elissa begins her story by saying that she will “tell you about how one of those prudes who pretended to be so disgusted with love was through ingenuity of her lover first made to taste the fruits of love before she had known its blossoms” (228). Catella is, of course, this “prude” that Elissa alludes to, her lover Ricciardo. From this introduction, it would appear that Catella does not experience actual love in her marriage to Filippello. However, the narrator later states that “Catella loved no one except Filippello, of whom she was very jealous that she believed every bird flying through the air was about to steal him away from her” (229). I find it interesting that, at the end of the story, Catella only “changed her harshness towards Ricciardo into sweet love” because she realized “how much more tasty the kisses of a lover were than those of a husband” (236). Does this mean that Catella’s love is based on shallow physical pleasure or is the story pointing out the idea that one is more likely to be loved by a lover than by their own spouse. In this light, this story can be seen as a criticism on the principles of marriage at the time that it was written. But Catella’s situation stretches beyond that of finding love outside of a loveless marriage, as it was explained that she loved her husband more than anyone else to the point where she became paranoid.

Stepping back a bit in the story, Ricciardo points out two important facts in an attempt to stop Catella from telling anyone what he did. First, he says that she will lose her honor and good reputation if she tells anyone that he tricked her, because he will assert that he promised her money and gifts. He also points out that a feud would arise between himself and her husband that probably wouldn’t end until one of them died, in which case Catella would never be happy again. I was surprised when Ricciardo brought up these points of suasion, because to me it indicates a relationship based completely on deceit and fear as opposed to openness and understanding. Also, I find it interesting that while much of the emphasis here is focused on Catella’s reputation in society, Ricciardo is completely open about that fact that he is courting other ladies even though he has a wife. This contradiction is never brought to the forefront, which would suggest to me that is was more disgrace was placed on a lady if she cheated than a man (a long history of double standards like this, ie Hammurabi’s code of law, backs up this theory). Similarly, in the story about the sanctimonious friar and the clever lovers, the woman had to be cautious of her reputation (“she dared not declare hr love… fearing the dangers this might entail”), while all the man has to fear is a few harsh chastisements.

Decameron 2

Story 3.1

This muteness, as the author states at the end of the story, serves to underline the power of speech (often associated with women). It would seem that, at the beginning of the story, Masetto’s muteness makes him prosperous, because his poor situation gets him sympathy from the Abbess: “Find out if he knows how to garden and try to keep him here; give him a pair of shoes and an old cloak; praise him, pamper him, and give him plenty to eat” (196). (This differs greatly from Nuto’s experience, in which the nun’s had no sympathy for him.) However, it is soon revealed that the power of speech and its rewards are much greater than the rewards of being mute.

SEE POST BELOW FOR RESPONSE TO STORY 3.1

Decameron 2

Story 2.5:

This story tells of a man who goes from being gullible and easily-manipulated to being more skeptical over what people tell him so as to better prepare himself for trickery. The (less than optimistic) message here seems to be that most people’s words cannot be taken at face value, so you should learn not to be so gullible. This theme hearkens back somewhat to the vey first story of the Decameron, which warned the reader not to take what they hear at face-value. Every time that Andreuccio innocently put his faith in another person, he ended up losing out; however, when he finally started to use trickery to his own advantage, he ended up with more than he bargained for.

This story puts little faith in the concept of humanity or acting nobly/unselfishly. In the beginning of the story, we see that Andreuccio is unsuccessful in making a profit by trying to bargain for horses fairly. However, when his situation is completely reversed (he becomes a thief and a trickster) he ends up with more than he bargained for.

The story stresses the need to be les gullible and more conniving by putting Andreuccio in a series of unfortunate predicaments in rapid successive order. The reader can’t help but sympathize deeply with this man, yet as these unfortunate situations accumulate, it becomes clearer and clearer that they are arising out of Andreuccio’s gullibility. Therefore , the pessimistic, albeit amusing, message of the story is clear to the reader.

The Decameron 1

1. “If this is that case, we can recognize the greatness of God’s mercy towards us, which pays more attention to the purity of our faith than to our errors” (38).

There is an ironic differentiation presented in several of these stories between the appearance of virtue and genuine virtue. Most often this comparison is made by example of the church, though the critique is most often ambiguous. I found it interesting that, while the above quote warns against impurity, the church is not shed in the best of lights (though certainly not in the worst), while the most impure character is clearly much ore clever than any of the other others. In fact, every character in this story has a major fault, whether it be gullibility, avarice, etc. Therefore, it would seem that the overall tone of this story is that human beings are all flawed creatures: therefore, we cannot expect that unintentional faults will not be overlooked by God, who must realize that humans are imperfect. This theme is exemplified when the friar, who is attempting to “absolve” the merchant, tells the merchant that he shouldn’t worry so much about the “minor things,” as he is apparently pure of heart. It would seem that, in a bigger sense, this story is a commentary on a too-strict method of religious practice that allows no room for natural, accidental human errors. While the friar, clergy, and the rest of the people are kept in the dark as to the truth of the situation and foolishly offer their prayers to a sinner, the idea is that God ignores their ignorance by overlooking this error in light of their good intentions. Later stories paint the clergy in a much darker light, yet these faults are ignored even though they clearly arise out of impurity rather than ignorance. For this reason, it would seem that this first story sets the tone of the others, in that there is a consistent irony undercutting the portrayal of the clergy: it is Boccaccio’s intention that this irony becomes apparent to the reader so that they interpret a multitude of viewpoints to the same story.

2. “Giannotto, recognizing the his friend’s honesty and upright qualities, began to feel deep regret that the soul of such a valiant, wise, and good man through lack of faith would have to be lost in Hell” (39).

“But if he goes to the court of Rome and sees the wicked and filthy lives of the clergy, not only will he not change from a Jew to a Christian, but if he had already become a Christian before, he would, without a doubt, return to being a Jew” (40).

It would seem that the actual speaker of the story here serves the purpose of voicing a generally ignorant and contradictory point of view, while the overlying irony of the words reveal the author’s commentary. Obviously, Abraham (who is referred to simply as “the Jew” until he is baptized) is of pure character, and Giannotto obviously understands that being a Christian does not necessarily make you a virtuous person. The ‘surface,’ or false, moral of the story is that Christianity must be the truest faith as it can endure the most impure of characters in its church. (Again, we see a deeply inset irony embedded in these stories.) On a different note, this story could be interpreted to mean that, in many cases, the actual virtuosity of a person is overlooked because of an insignificant difference (that being whatever religious doctrine they follow).

3. “Therefore, I have taken him as it is he I desire, not will I ever accept any other man no matter what my father or others might think” (Abbot/daughter of King of England, 92).

“The Pope, too, was amazed both by he manner in which the lady was dressed and by her choice of husbands, but realizing that there was no turning back now, he decided to grant her request” (93).

This was my favorite story of the five that we read because the daughter of the King of England is a really strong female character. After the previous four stories, I wasn’t expecting to see a female character ‘take charge,’ much less masquerade as an Abbot in order to trick a group of people into taking her to the Pope. The first quote showcases her ability to speak with authority; the second illustrates the idea that, despite the fact that her actions are surprising, there is no reason why her request shouldn’t be granted. Unlike some of the other romances we have read, she was not immediately introduced as the ‘the most beautiful woman anyone has ever seen”; rather, her masquerade allowed for her internal thoughts and emotions to reach the author first. After her marriage to Alessandro, she proceeds to restore the livelihood of the three degenerate uncles, depicting her as being both an intellectually and financially capable person. It would seem that the author uses the voice of the Pope to voice both the expected overtone of surprise in light of these events as well as the idea that, despite the abnormality of the ‘Abbot’s’ behavior, her request should be granted. Here we again see the duality of to opposing viewpoints – that of society in general and that of the author.

Tristan and Isolde (Film)

1. It would seem that the purpose of creating a storyline parallel to the relationship between Tristan and Isolde is to elevate the meaning/implications of the relationship. The war between Britain and Ireland dramatizes the plot even more; therefore there is more emotional strain between Tristan and Isolde, as the affair would have much bigger implications than it did in the text. The audience also gets a bigger sense of impending fate on all of the characters, which orients them to the remainder of the film.

2. In the place of the love potion device, Tristan and Isolde meet and fall in love before King Mark is even a factor in their relationship. This seems to make their love more pure and believable, and it puts a more realistic strain on their emotions when they are forced to separate.

3. I think that King Mark is a much more sympathetic character in the film than he was in the text. He was just pathetic in the text. The film gave him a background, a repertoire, and a depth of character. He appears to be a strong, intelligent, and genuine character in the film. Though this should make it more difficult to sympathize with the lovers, I think the audience can generally sympathize with Tristan and Isolde as well, especially since their initial introduction was changed for the film. Also, there is a noticeable focus on feministic issues that plays well into the interpretation of Isolde's situation and how she deals with it. The film added in a scene in which Isodle is being told by her father that she is to be married; her speech about wanting to have a life of her own and not wanting to be a prize to be won reflects a more modern viewpoint of the situation.

4. Isolde’s decision to keep her name hidden reflects the portrayal of her in the text as being crafty with language. I suppose that this theme of hiding vital information could reflect an overall theme in their relationship: their love is always underscored by a lie. Also, in the text it was Tristan who was having the “identity crisis,” but in the film this conflict seems to be shared almost equally between Tristan and Isolde. This could be the result of the feministic overtones in the film.

5. The barons represent the opposing force in the movie, just as they do in the film. In both versions, their motivations appear somewhat morally gray: in the text, they are jealous of King Mark’s favoritism towards Tristan and try to expose him, but they are only doing their jobs and never actually betray Mark. The ambiguity towards them is forces upon the reader in the text. However, the film version makes the barons are believably “evil”: one major difference is that they are not as supportive of King Mark as the text makes them out to be. The revealing of the affair is not an attempt to warn Mark, but to take him down. The barons better represent betrayal in the film than they do in the text, and their motivation for power makes them more dimensional characters.

6. Technically, Tristan was killed by the same thing in both the text and the film: in the text, he died because he thought that Isolde had betrayed his love, and in the film he died because the barons had betrayed King Mark to the King of Ireland. Therefore, I think that this theme of betrayal as the underlying killer of Tristan represents the way that he seemed to betray his loyalty to King Mark by falling in love with Isolde. On another note, I think that the reason why Isolde “disappeared” in the film instead of simply dying is because, since her father betrayed her and she in turn betrayed King Mark, she has no home for her heart when Tristan dies.

7. I think that the focus on the film lies balanced between the relationship of Tristan and Isolde and the relationship between Britain and Ireland. The overlying theme of war brings the implications of the love between Tristan and Isolde to a new and more dramatic level. If the focus were simply on the affair, the rest of the world wouldn’t have as much of a reason to be engaged in the conflict (in the text, the author used the townspeople as a reflection of the way the reader should react to the situation, but it resulted in flat characterization of the townspeople).

Yvain (Part 3)

1) Yvain believes that his name is tainted with shame. Following his ‘awakening’ in the woods (his symbolic ‘rebirth’), he must build up a new reputation. He is trying to become a new man, and therefore must give himself a new name. This was symbolized in the battle between the lion and the snake, which represents rebirth (because it sheds its skin). Yvain’s choice to fight on the part of the lion represents his choosing of good over evil, nobility over wickedness, honor over shame. Therefore, it is fitting that Yvain’s new name symbolizes the qualities that make up the true knight. His ‘rebirth’ marks a turning point in his life as a knight; he is no longer seeking adventure for adventure’s sake, but going about true knightly duties and helping people. He admits to Laudine (who at the time does not know who he is), that he is “not of great renown” (352). This humility is much of what characterizes Yvian at this point in the text, and is the reason why the title he chooses for himself suggests a dedication to knighthood as opposed to personal glory.

2) The sisters end up unwittingly making two close companions fight each other; this could reflect the way that the sisters are fighting even though they should be companions.

I thought it was strange that an issue about land ownership would be resolved with a battle. I have to wonder if Chretien was suggesting the absurdity of this by making the battle amount to nothing so that the matter could be settled by the king.

3) I thought that the ending was a little disappointing. Laudine only reconciled with Yvain because of the oath that she was tricked into making, not because she really wanted to take him back. This could be what Chretien was alluding to in his speech about Hatred and Love: “Now Hatred is in the saddle, for she spurs and charges and tramples over Love as hard as she can, while Love does not stir” (370). This speech takes place just before the fight between Yvain and Gawain, but could “Hatred” also refer to Laudine, while “Love” refers to Yvain?

Because of Laudine’s distain for him, Yvain dedicated his life to “devoting himself to helping women in need of assistance” (355). It is for this reason that Yvain is finally brought back to Laudine, but the situation is incredibly ironic: every other maiden that Yvain has helped was extremely grateful and wanted to have Yvain as their husband; but Laudine, for whom Yvain was doing all of this, is the only one who accepts him out of obligation as opposed to love. Chretien states at the end of the story that “everything had turned out well for he is loved and cherished by his lady, and she by him” (380), but I have to wonder if this statement is meant to be taken at face value or if the forced reconciliation is meant to remain an unresolved undertone.

4) The fact that Chretien only reveals his name at the end of the story could mirror the way that Yvain had to hide who he really was in order to build up his reputation. Yvain has finally made a name for himself, so the author can now give his name to the romance.

Additional Thoughts: Who or what is the “unfaithful doctor” that Chretien speaks of? It harkened back to the beginning of the tale, when he was talking about how true love has dissipated over the years. “To serve her he would have taken on human flesh, abandoned his divinity, and struck his own body with the dart whose wound never heals unless an unfaithful doctor tends it. It is not right for anyone to be healed unless he encounters unfaithfulness, for he who is healed in any other way does not love truly” (362). Almost every “healer” in the romances that we have read are has been a woman. There were numerous female healers in this romance alone; it would be interesting to know what Chretien meant by his “unfaithful doctor” story and if it relates to this theme of women as healers.

Yvain (Part 2)

1) Gawain’s speech and it’s outcome:

“Indeed, you would suffer afterwards for her love if it caused you to lose your reputation, because a woman will quickly withdraw her love – and she’s not wrong to do so – if she finds herself hating a man who has lost face in any way after he has become lord of the realm” (326).

Gawain’s speech has strong echoes of the Erec and Enide tale, except for the fact that Enide did not stop loving Erec when his supposed reputation declined. This, as well as the later outcome of Yvain’s departure, suggests that Gawain does not speak Chretien’s true thoughts here. Not once did Enide stop loving Erec after she heard that he had “lost face.” This may suggest that Gawain is Chretien’s way of showing one view (the appearance-based view) of marriage, while Chretien seems to believe in love in marriage. When Yvian actually does lose his reputation, it is not because he dishonored his fellow knights or king, but because he dishonored Laudine: “But the love I have for you will become hatred, you can be sure of that, if you should overstay the period I shall set for you. Be assured that I’ll not break my word” (327). Therefore, Chretien may be suggesting, as in Erec’s case, that Yvain should have honored the commitment he made to his wife.

“But pleasures grow sweeter when delayed…. The joy of love that is deferred is like the green log burning: it gives off more heat and burns longer, since it is slower to get started” (327).

I think that this part of the speech suggests, though Gawain doesn’t know it, that Yvain may have stronger feelings towards Laudine than Laudine does for him: Yvain is like the “green log burning” because he was pining over Laudine before Laudine had even met him or decided she wanted to marry him. Therefore, his love for her “grew sweeter” because it was delayed.

There is also the fact that Laudine was able to give him permission to leave so easily, and up to year at that. Yvain even said that a year would be too long (327). Laudine seemed very stoic throughout the agreement, while Yvain “wept profusely upon taking [his leave]” (328). This suggests that vain would not have even considered leaving Laudine if Gawain hadn’t convinced him to. (I was very surprised when Laudine told Yvain he could spend a year away from her; I thought she would have allowed him a week at the most. A year seems entirely too long.) I found it interesting when it was said that one of the ladies Yvain met on his journeys “would never have given him [permission to leave] had he agreed to take her as his mistress or his wife” (336), while Laudine gave Yvain leave to go relatively easily. I think this further suggests that Laudine’s love for Yvain is not equal to Yvain’s love for Laudine.

2) Yvain’s shame:

The year seems to pass quite quickly, during which time Yvain builds up his honor and esteem again and again in tournaments, battles, etc: “The year passed meanwhile and my lord Yvain did so splendidly all year long that my lord Gawain took great pains to honour him; and he caused him to delay so long that the entire year passed and a good bit of the next…. The previous evening they had returned from a tournament where my lord Yvain had fought and carried off all the glory” (329). It is immediately after this that the damsel comes to tell Yvain that he has broken his promise to Laudine and will never be allowed to see her again. This build-up of glory, followed immediately by a great downfall, seems to compare the worth of Yvain’s knightly prowess to the value of his love. Clearly, the message is that his love is of more value. This seems to be symbolically displayed when the damsel takes back the ring, which until that point made Yvain invincible (“Yet now this miracle happened, for Yvain remained alive without his heart”). It is only after this point that we see Yvain repeatedly getting injured so that he may prove his worth. Unlike in Erec and Enide, however, which has similar tones, Yvain is trying to prove his worth to his wife, not to anyone else. Yvain is, at the same time, proving his worth to the audience as well.

3) Yvain’s reaction:

When Yvain reacted the way he did, I was reminded of the peasant in the clearing from the beginning of the story, who said he was a man who was lord of the beasts. When Yvain goes insane, he seems to become an uncontrollable wild animal. This leads me to believe that the tame lion presented later on in the story is symbolic of Yvain becoming the lord of his own inner beast.

His time of insanity in the woods is also the mark of a kind of re-baptism. He is stripped of clothing and, when he is finally healed, is covered from head to foot in a healing ointment. Later on in the story, he gives himself a new name. Therefore, it seems that Yvain was ‘born-again.’

4) The snake/dragon and the lion

The first thing I though of in this scene was “Slytherin vs. Gryffindor!” But then I got serious. Lions are often used to symbolize bravery, while serpents seem to be used as representations of forbidden knowledge (Adam and Eve), a source of evil, or rebirth (because the snake sheds it’s skin). Going along with the last of these three interpretations, this seems to back up my earlier theory about Yvain becoming re-born and re-baptised.

When Yvain first comes across these two animals, he is unsure of who to slay at first. If the snake as seen as representative of evil, then Yvain’s decision to slay it means that he fights for good as opposed to evil. After the snake is killed, Yvain turns to the lion and makes the same mistake about it that Calogrenant made about the peasant in the woods: he assumes that it is going to harm him, when in fact it never intends to do so.